Skip to main content

About your Search

20100919
20100919
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
folks are willing to spend the time. the allegation that i use the tab without a permit is hogwash. i regularly used the not-in- service tab as my personal transportation vehicle. >> thank you. commissioner fung:, shoulder do you have? -- how much longer do you have? >> 30 seconds. her statement made it look like both camps were being used at the same time. and never once stopped to pick up a fair when i was on an errand run and put visible signs in each rear window of the tab that said "not in service" when i was using it to run errands. i hope i have explained why some things were not previously available. i will answer any questions you might have. my intent was never to disobey rules and laws -- exactly the opposite. i believed i was obey federal labor laws to give my workers the option since it was 100% employee contributory. commissioner fung: one more sentence. >> a revocation or suspension of my permit is grossly unreasonable and the decision should be set aside in its entirety. over 1000 hours of my time and $30,000 of attorneys fees is enough for and an intentional wrongdoin
not lift 11 inches of a building without expecting some type of dramatic line rupture. >> could you give us a better idea by what you mean by that settlement? where is the settling, and is the first n.o.v. predicated on the settlement? >> it is, and needless to say it has gotten worse. i think there was some construction that occurred on the eastern portion of the building that has a retaining wall. it is about six and a half or seven feet below the level of our grade. our building has been settling and causing lateral pressure on the retaining wall. so it continues to move downward and generating stressers on the headers. >> which side? >> that would be on the southeast corner of the building. northeast. >> the northern corner? >> correct. >> and the 11 inches is across that entire corner or property line? >> yes. >> are you intending to jack up the building? >> yes. for a project of this nature, we are going to be replacing all the foundations. we have going to be replacing the intermediate footing. most likely we will have an intermediate shoring system. once you hold the building tempor
commission. we also have with us commanding officer of the san francisco police department permit sector and a representative of the municipal transportation agency division of taxis and accessible services. i cannot see if anyone else is here. we will also have a representative of the department of public health. i will go over the meeting guidelines and the swearing in process. the board requests you turn off all phones in pages -- pager so there will not disturb the proceeding. please carry on conversations in the hallway. appellants, permit holders, and permit responders each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include the comments within that period. members who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes to address the board and no rebuttals. please speak into the microphone. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked to submit a speaker or business card to me when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board
either. at a meeting that i requested and which chirac used to attend -- which are requested and which she refused to attend if either lisa or kathryn were present, she admitted she denied access, but said that was just for a few days. at this meeting, i asked her if she would try to be objective. please explain to me why it when the contractor provided for the application of siding on all four walls -- the men were there. the equipment was there. the scaffolding was there. why wouldn't he have performed what he is obligated to do under the contract? there was no explanation that she could provide, and yet if you read those letters that are solicited from the neighbors to send in, it certainly appears from those letters that other explanations were made, such as lisa and katryn were looking for a way out, which is nonsense. the building inspector was not misled. they sought a modification permit. both dbi and planning signed off. the fact is ms. belsky has changed her mind. this situation now is different. it is a lot more expensive. you have to start from scratch with a new contractor
was used when it was known to the operators of the massage parlor that there were inspectors on the ground. so they were sent there to hide. why were they hiding? because they were not licensed, not permitted masseuses. 3should we have deca board that we would have a step- function and we would not go for revocation, not go for the death sentence? we were very sympathetic and brought up the fact we were very sympathetic to the appellant's background. this was a disturbing case, and i feel as though nothing new has been brought forward. also, i do not feel there was any evidence that makes me feel as though this represents manifest injustice, so i intend to not vote for a rehearing request. commissioner fung: if one listens to only the facts that rehearing argument, one would have thought those two were the u<iprimary things discussed. and they were discussed at the previous meeting, but they were two omitting issues that created the decision. are they new issues? there were other issues, at least for my decision, that is how my judgment worked, and i am prepared to move if there is no fur
on page street. it's our hope that we can make maximum use of those two parcels by actually creating housing on those. and the union has sat with mr. golden and some consultants who came in and explained how you can lease one and put up a few units, but we believe there are also non-profit folks who can come in and show you how we can do a maximum number of units on both of those pieces of land, and we hope that you remain open to that and we hope that we can put up educator housing so that we can offer a ray of hope to these couple of hundred new people next year that we will be bringing up, a place for them to perhaps stay for a while or forever, or a way to make it possible for them to come and work and settle in san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. kelly. president kim: actually, educator housing will be on the agendas for next tuesday, the second agenda item after special ed, so it will be later. but you can also come and comment at that time because the entire board will be getting the same presentation that you got. item g is the consent calendar. we have a mo
that this school board, all of administration, all of us have been working on foor a long time and it's exciting to be able to present that this evening so you get an understanding of what's going to be different, where we're going, what are the thoughts behind doing something like this. and we believe that in looking at our data, by focusing in a little bit more and having the support that schools have to have in order to be successful, by developing these two zones in our areas that need the most assistance, because that's where our persistently low-performing schools are at. we need to intervene, we need to do something, and we can't wait any longer. even though they've shown phenomenal growth, i want to give a little shout-out to malcolm x. because malcolm x elementary school, believe it or not, has an a.p.i. score of 800 this year. applause plause so they've grown by over 200 in two years. [applause] so it can be done. for those who don't believe it can't be done, get out of the way. because we at san francisco unified, we're getting it by the help of everybody. so i'm excited to do this pr
have time for rebuttal as well if you care to use it. >> when i was asked to get the permit, i went to the entire process with the planning department to approve of the vinyl windows. the neighbors have them. there is not a question about that. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: commissioners, in the past we have always taken money away from the department of building inspection on penalty cases. however, usually those cases involve work that was done prior to a particular property owner coming into possession of that particular property. this case is slightly different , and the contractor is at fault. i am wondering whether the permit holder is prepared to go after the contractor. and if so, i would publicly look to a continuance of this particular case. vice president goh: my only concern is the statute of limitations problem with the permit holder. when was the work done? 2005? 2003 on a contract? it might not be that easy to go after the contractor. commissioner garcia: as that issue was raised, i would ask the attorney. is there a window i
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)